Switch Theme:

Tyranids Taking Over - May GTs  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





On that i agree. On aos side mw's work differently to mw's in 40k(they aren't applied independently. Attack that causes 3 mw is treated in damage allocation same way as damage 3 attack.

What this means is -1 dam rules affect mortal wounds...

...except in lizardmen faq their -1 dam is said to not affect mw's. So is that global rule change? Lizardmen spefific? Same wording on rules...

If core rules cause issues/unintended results fix should be core rule faq. Not faction specific.

2022 painted/bought: 307/419 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




So this weekend to check the power of Tyranids? And I guess knights?

Its not quite true (cos guard etc) - but it does feel like if Tyranids & Harlequins were chopped down a bit (10% point hikes on most things), you'd have a fairly open meta at the top. Certain factions would have an edge - but it wouldn't be surprising to see most factions score a top 4 place somewhere in the world.

Which leaves me a bit concerned GW are going to throw the table over with a new season, new secondaries etc.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Tyel wrote:
Which leaves me a bit concerned GW are going to throw the table over with a new season, new secondaries etc.


The secondaries should be leveling the field....IF they do what they said they would and make secondaries for all factions and in a way that makes them appropriate.

Stranglehold is popular, because if you're dominant you can score 15 and you can get your first 3 points without any interaction from the opponent. Getting rid of secondaries like that keeps dominant armies from scoring 95 to 100 all the time or gives other armies more ways to score appopriately.

Then the list building changes are more restrictive, but I'm betting the people spending tons up front on CP are typically the stronger armies with lots to use it on.

   
Made in us
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

Define up front. In general the stronger armies spend more in relics and warlord traits, but less on offensive stratagems as they can rely on the sheer power of their datasheets.

Weaker armies tend to be more dependent on stratagems to close the gap.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/18 20:52:38


 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




 Tyran wrote:
Define up front. In general the stronger armies spend more in relics and warlord traits, but less on offensive stratagems as they can rely on the sheer power of their datasheets.

Weaker armies tend to be more dependent on stratagems to close the gap.



I feel like Custodes depend pretty heavily on strats. Same with most every "top tier FOTM faction". Strats are what pushes an ok faction into broken territory so often, that I'm surprised they've lasted this long. I mean, smash Captains, Castellans, Custodes, and Iron Hands have all been, I feel, at their heart, the cause of broken strats. Very few factions can say they are powerful because of relics and warlord traits. I guess pre-codex Custodes?
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Tyran wrote:
Define up front. In general the stronger armies spend more in relics and warlord traits, but less on offensive stratagems as they can rely on the sheer power of their datasheets.

Weaker armies tend to be more dependent on stratagems to close the gap.


This is what I've noticed. An army like Nids or Harlequins isn't worried about key strats or re rolls, they're just gonna bring the best list they can and use whatever CP they have left. Marines need their key strats.
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





S tier armies have good strats that push good units to be even better.

But a 25 point Bonesword-Deathspitter Warrior is going to be better then most of the units in the game even without strats.

Cutting starting CP in half is going to kill some builds, none of which are currently broken, as well as reduce alpha strike a bit because you can't unload strats in turn 1 to do max damage.
The latter is a good thing, but its not going to stop broken armies from being broken. It just means they table you on turn 4 instead of turn 3.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Ordana wrote:
S tier armies have good strats that push good units to be even better.

But a 25 point Bonesword-Deathspitter Warrior is going to be better then most of the units in the game even without strats.

Cutting starting CP in half is going to kill some builds, none of which are currently broken, as well as reduce alpha strike a bit because you can't unload strats in turn 1 to do max damage.
The latter is a good thing, but its not going to stop broken armies from being broken. It just means they table you on turn 4 instead of turn 3.


I hate that so much. Compare a Ravener at 30 or warrior at 25 to an Ogryn at 25, a Skorpekh at 30, a mutilator at 35, or even a Paragon Warsuit at 80 and then cry yourself to sleep.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






ERJAK wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
S tier armies have good strats that push good units to be even better.

But a 25 point Bonesword-Deathspitter Warrior is going to be better then most of the units in the game even without strats.

Cutting starting CP in half is going to kill some builds, none of which are currently broken, as well as reduce alpha strike a bit because you can't unload strats in turn 1 to do max damage.
The latter is a good thing, but its not going to stop broken armies from being broken. It just means they table you on turn 4 instead of turn 3.


I hate that so much. Compare a Ravener at 30 or warrior at 25 to an Ogryn at 25, a Skorpekh at 30, a mutilator at 35, or even a Paragon Warsuit at 80 and then cry yourself to sleep.


so compare units that are bad (except skorpek) at their current pts cost to a unit that is good at its current pts cost?
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Then the list building changes are more restrictive, but I'm betting the people spending tons up front on CP are typically the stronger armies with lots to use it on.

Or people that have to spend CP up front just to use their tanks and dreadnoughts.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Then the list building changes are more restrictive, but I'm betting the people spending tons up front on CP are typically the stronger armies with lots to use it on.

Or people that have to spend CP up front just to use their tanks and dreadnoughts.


Low key hope that they just axe that rule with the next CA, but I can see it sticking, because they don't want a ton of contemptor spam.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/19 01:50:27


   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Then the list building changes are more restrictive, but I'm betting the people spending tons up front on CP are typically the stronger armies with lots to use it on.

Or people that have to spend CP up front just to use their tanks and dreadnoughts.


Low key hope that they just axe that rule with the next CA, but I can see it sticking, because they don't want a ton of contemptor spam.

Yeah, that sounds like typical gw: nerf multiple units to prevent spamming one. And why exactly is spamming Contemptors worse than spamming any other unit in the game again?

Edit: Oh, and only "Relic" and "Chaos" Contemptors, not the plastic ones. Those are ok, but the resin ones aren't, because "Reasons".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/19 02:03:14


 
   
Made in mx
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

I'm pretty sure the reason is because they have "relic" in the name and relics cost CP.

IIRC before 8th, those units had "one per army" restrictions.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Tyran wrote:
I'm pretty sure the reason is because they have "relic" in the name and relics cost CP.

IIRC before 8th, those units had "one per army" restrictions.

Nope. One without a "tax character" (Master of the Forge for Loyalist Scum. Warp Smith, Sorcerer, or Abaddon for CSM). As many as you were willing to pay for with said tax character. In 8th loyalists needed one unit of the same FOC role for each "Relic" unit. CSM had no restrictions. Oh, and Contemptors were NOT "Relics" in 7th, for either CSM or Loyalist Scum.
   
Made in fi
5th God of Chaos (O'rly?)





 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Edit: Oh, and only "Relic" and "Chaos" Contemptors, not the plastic ones. Those are ok, but the resin ones aren't, because "Reasons".


Reason being less profitable for GW. Plastic contemptor provides higher profit margin.

2022 painted/bought: 307/419 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




tneva82 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Edit: Oh, and only "Relic" and "Chaos" Contemptors, not the plastic ones. Those are ok, but the resin ones aren't, because "Reasons".


Reason being less profitable for GW. Plastic contemptor provides higher profit margin.


Yes, that's why they backed up the plastic one with the better loadouts and rules.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




clearly playing 4D chess with their buyers.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Dudeface wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Edit: Oh, and only "Relic" and "Chaos" Contemptors, not the plastic ones. Those are ok, but the resin ones aren't, because "Reasons".


Reason being less profitable for GW. Plastic contemptor provides higher profit margin.


Yes, that's why they backed up the plastic one with the better loadouts and rules.

It's true that the resin Contemptors have a greater selection of loadouts, but the statlines and special rules are exactly the same for them and the plastic Contemptor, minus Martial Legacy itself. So you're paying 1CP for additional weapon options, which you then have to spend extra points on.
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Edit: Oh, and only "Relic" and "Chaos" Contemptors, not the plastic ones. Those are ok, but the resin ones aren't, because "Reasons".


Reason being less profitable for GW. Plastic contemptor provides higher profit margin.


Yes, that's why they backed up the plastic one with the better loadouts and rules.

It's true that the resin Contemptors have a greater selection of loadouts, but the statlines and special rules are exactly the same for them and the plastic Contemptor, minus Martial Legacy itself. So you're paying 1CP for additional weapon options, which you then have to spend extra points on.


Yeah but my point was that nobody actually wants the loadouts on the plastic contemptor, it's going to produce a "higher profit margin" because it's not what people want, they want the mortis loadout resin ones.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Dudeface wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Edit: Oh, and only "Relic" and "Chaos" Contemptors, not the plastic ones. Those are ok, but the resin ones aren't, because "Reasons".


Reason being less profitable for GW. Plastic contemptor provides higher profit margin.


Yes, that's why they backed up the plastic one with the better loadouts and rules.

It's true that the resin Contemptors have a greater selection of loadouts, but the statlines and special rules are exactly the same for them and the plastic Contemptor, minus Martial Legacy itself. So you're paying 1CP for additional weapon options, which you then have to spend extra points on.


Yeah but my point was that nobody actually wants the loadouts on the plastic contemptor, it's going to produce a "higher profit margin" because it's not what people want, they want the mortis loadout resin ones.

Ah, ok, true.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Then the list building changes are more restrictive, but I'm betting the people spending tons up front on CP are typically the stronger armies with lots to use it on.

Or people that have to spend CP up front just to use their tanks and dreadnoughts.


Low key hope that they just axe that rule with the next CA, but I can see it sticking, because they don't want a ton of contemptor spam.


Please god yes!!!

And contemptor spam isnt even oppressive anyway, volkite already got nerfed to a decent spot and i'd argue that redemptors are stronger anyway. At the very least, Chaos shouldnt need to pay for martial legacy. We only have one "dread" option in our codex, unlike loyalists.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






With the amount of effort GW is currently putting into FW datasheets, I seriously doubt that they will do anything but the bare minimum to keep their rules playable.

In my opinion GW is clearly trying to wind down all of FW 40k and it will completely disappear in the next few years.

I present you, the the most misquoted part of all 40k lore:
Genetor Lukas Anzion in Codex Orks, 3rd edition wrote:[...] To the Ork, the only conceivable explanation for this is that the vehicle travels faster because it is red. However, as disturbing as it sounds, these 'facts' become true. Red Ork vehicles do travel perceptibly faster than those of other colors, even when all other design aspects are nominally the same. Similarly, many captured Ork weapons and items of equipment should not work, and indeed do not work unless wielded by an Ork. I believe this is linked to the strong psychic aura surrounding all Orkoids and have developed the Anzion Theorem of Orkoid Mechamorphic Resonant Kinetics. I theorise that many Ork inventions work because the Orks themselves think that they should work. The strong telekinetic abilities of the Ork's subconscious somehow ensures that the machinery or weaponry functions as desired.

This is literally all GW ever wrote on this topic - everything else is meme knowledge 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Jidmah wrote:
With the amount of effort GW is currently putting into FW datasheets, I seriously doubt that they will do anything but the bare minimum to keep their rules playable.

In my opinion GW is clearly trying to wind down all of FW 40k and it will completely disappear in the next few years.


i mean, its not even gonna be "FW" 40k soon, we're getting Sicarans, Spartans, Contemptors, Leviathans and that new big tank in plastic soon enough.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i mean, its not even gonna be "FW" 40k soon, we're getting Sicarans, Spartans, Contemptors, Leviathans and that new big tank in plastic soon enough.


As far as I have gathered, the big tank is illegal to field in 40k because of too many lascannons, right?

I wouldn't expect vastly more support than the BSF or KT units got, which means that you get narrative rules to play them that either suck in competitive play or will get completely nerfed into the ground if they are ever seen anywhere near a tournament list.

I present you, the the most misquoted part of all 40k lore:
Genetor Lukas Anzion in Codex Orks, 3rd edition wrote:[...] To the Ork, the only conceivable explanation for this is that the vehicle travels faster because it is red. However, as disturbing as it sounds, these 'facts' become true. Red Ork vehicles do travel perceptibly faster than those of other colors, even when all other design aspects are nominally the same. Similarly, many captured Ork weapons and items of equipment should not work, and indeed do not work unless wielded by an Ork. I believe this is linked to the strong psychic aura surrounding all Orkoids and have developed the Anzion Theorem of Orkoid Mechamorphic Resonant Kinetics. I theorise that many Ork inventions work because the Orks themselves think that they should work. The strong telekinetic abilities of the Ork's subconscious somehow ensures that the machinery or weaponry functions as desired.

This is literally all GW ever wrote on this topic - everything else is meme knowledge 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 VladimirHerzog wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
S tier armies have good strats that push good units to be even better.

But a 25 point Bonesword-Deathspitter Warrior is going to be better then most of the units in the game even without strats.

Cutting starting CP in half is going to kill some builds, none of which are currently broken, as well as reduce alpha strike a bit because you can't unload strats in turn 1 to do max damage.
The latter is a good thing, but its not going to stop broken armies from being broken. It just means they table you on turn 4 instead of turn 3.


I hate that so much. Compare a Ravener at 30 or warrior at 25 to an Ogryn at 25, a Skorpekh at 30, a mutilator at 35, or even a Paragon Warsuit at 80 and then cry yourself to sleep.


so compare units that are bad (except skorpek) at their current pts cost to a unit that is good at its current pts cost?
Right. So are we making (almost) every other unit in the game cheaper with the next points rebalance or are we making warriors more expensive?

"your comparing bad units to good units". I say we're comparing units that are roughly similar and wonder wtf is up with the point costs and how there is no rime or reason to them.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Jidmah wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i mean, its not even gonna be "FW" 40k soon, we're getting Sicarans, Spartans, Contemptors, Leviathans and that new big tank in plastic soon enough.


As far as I have gathered, the big tank is illegal to field in 40k because of too many lascannons, right?

I wouldn't expect vastly more support than the BSF or KT units got, which means that you get narrative rules to play them that either suck in competitive play or will get completely nerfed into the ground if they are ever seen anywhere near a tournament list.

If by "big tank" you and Vlad are referring to the Kratos, it's currently illegal in 40k because it doesn't have 40k rules, and the model hasn't even been released yet. I don't think the number of lascannons that it is equipped with has anything to do with it. Fellblades and Spartans have had 40k rules for almost a decade, and they come with 8.
   
Made in us
Huge Hierodule




Mexico

 Ordana wrote:

Right. So are we making (almost) every other unit in the game cheaper with the next points rebalance or are we making warriors more expensive?

"your comparing bad units to good units". I say we're comparing units that are roughly similar and wonder wtf is up with the point costs and how there is no rime or reason to them.


We are doing nothing, we can at most wonder what GW will do in the next points rebalance, which only half the time follows any sort of logic.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Jidmah wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i mean, its not even gonna be "FW" 40k soon, we're getting Sicarans, Spartans, Contemptors, Leviathans and that new big tank in plastic soon enough.


As far as I have gathered, the big tank is illegal to field in 40k because of too many lascannons, right?

I wouldn't expect vastly more support than the BSF or KT units got, which means that you get narrative rules to play them that either suck in competitive play or will get completely nerfed into the ground if they are ever seen anywhere near a tournament list.


Why would the amount of lascannons dictate wheter or not it gets 40k rules? (but you are right, currently it doesn't have a 40k datasheet)

I expect GW will bring them all into 40k which was possibly the main idea when they made them plastic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ordana wrote:
Right. So are we making (almost) every other unit in the game cheaper with the next points rebalance or are we making warriors more expensive?

"your comparing bad units to good units". I say we're comparing units that are roughly similar and wonder wtf is up with the point costs and how there is no rime or reason to them.


Ogryns & co. aren't played at their current pts cost, Raveners are.

Making that comparison doesn't only say that Raveners are too strong, it also highlights that Ogryns & co are bad. If anything, Raveners need to drop a bit in efficiency but at the same time, Ogryns & co need to go up in efficiency.

I personally would rather Raveners be good than Nids have a Ogryn/Mutilator equivalent in their dex.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/19 15:24:01


 
   
Made in is
Furious Fire Dragon





Yep -- especially given that up until now, Raveners were very much on the same list as Ogryns and Mutilators (i.e. bad their entire existence). If Raveners took a ~5ppm nerf though, I wouldn't cry.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Yea I think you guys are going a little far in your comparisons. Ogryns are useless next to Bullgryn, but Skorpekhs, Paragons, and Spawn all fit in the band.

Paragons are now 70 - not 80. They have a 2+, AOC, -1D, a HB, two SBs, and a MC powersword.
Skorpekhs have one less wound, 3+, D2, resurrect, heal, and RR1s.

Maybe make the Ravener guns cost a few points and call it a day.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: